It is obvious why they support socio-economic AA as a replacement for the current regime...it simply would primarily benefit whites while poor blacks and middle class blacks would be shut out of our nation's best schools.

It is obvious why they support socio-economic AA as a replacement for the current regime...it simply would primarily benefit whites while poor blacks and middle class blacks would be shut out of our nation's best schools.

It is obvious why they support socio-economic AA as a replacement for the current regime...it simply would primarily benefit whites while poor blacks and middle class blacks would be shut out of our nation's best schools.

socioeconomic AA would benefit primarily whites?

duh.

::bows to the yaleness of galt::

but wouldn't it still disproportionately benefit URM's?

I don't think so. Affirmative Action by design benefits the highest scoring members of a preferred group. So if the preferred group is people who are economically disadvantaged, then the highest scoring members of the group will get preference. Poor whites score higher than middle class blacks. Poor blacks score the worst out of everyone.

The reality is that poor Blacks aren't going to get in under any regime. What socio-economic affirmative action does is simply redistribute some of the spots that are going to middle class blacks to poorer whites.

My "duh" wasn't to be mean or short with you because there is an argument (not very compelling in my view) that socio-economic affirmative action can benefit blacks and whites. SES for example is an analysis that takes into account several different factors including minority status and income. I thought you were trying to be funny by asking me, "Socioeconomic AA would primarily benefit whites" when I said in the previous post "it simply would primarily benefit whites." I can see now that it was an honest question.

ETA: The normative question is still open. Namely, is socio-economic affirmative action something we ought to do even if it harms members of traditionally disadvantaged racial groups? Maybe you might say that an analysis based on income comports more with the Constitution. Yet, if the argument is that race discrimination, even benign race discrimination, is wrong, then wouldn't economic affirmative action have the same problem analytically? You might suggest that the stigma assigned to minorities professionally might be reduced by virtue of an affirmative action system that is more inclusive. Still, race is more identifiable professionally than income. Thus, whites could benefit from AA (much like they do with legacy) and not have a stigma attached while Blacks cannot hide their color. So there's still much left to be debated. My point was only that I don't think many proponents of SEAA on this thread are concerned with the normative question, but are more selfishly motivated.

It is obvious why they support socio-economic AA as a replacement for the current regime...it simply would primarily benefit whites while poor blacks and middle class blacks would be shut out of our nation's best schools.

socioeconomic AA would benefit primarily whites?

duh.

::bows to the yaleness of galt::

but wouldn't it still disproportionately benefit URM's?

I don't think so. Affirmative Action by design benefits the highest scoring members of a preferred group. So if the preferred group is people who are economically disadvantaged, then the highest scoring members of the group will get preference. Poor whites score higher than middle class blacks. Poor blacks score the worst out of everyone.

The reality is that poor Blacks aren't going to get in under any regime. What socio-economic affirmative action does is simply redistribute some of the spots that are going to middle class blacks to poorer whites.

My "duh" wasn't to be mean or short with you because there is an argument (not very compelling in my view) that socio-economic affirmative action can benefit blacks and whites. SES for example is an analysis that takes into account several different factors including minority status and income. I thought you were trying to be funny by asking me, "Socioeconomic AA would primarily benefit whites" when I said in the previous post "it simply would primarily benefit whites." I can see now that it was an honest question.

never say you're sorry. it's a sign of weakness.

the reason why i asked about your previous statement was because i remember a little red birdie saying once that she could use income diversity as a proxy for racial diversity when it came to making sure that new housing developments were mixed in character. i can see how the scoring factor would make the analysis in the schools context different.

what i think needs to happen is that schools need to do race and socioeconomic status AA (which i believe they do already), but highlight the socioeconomic factor more so that there isn't this impression out there that poor whites are getting hosed.

It is obvious why they support socio-economic AA as a replacement for the current regime...it simply would primarily benefit whites while poor blacks and middle class blacks would be shut out of our nation's best schools.

people hate poverty, not specific racial or ethnic groups. who would object to hanging out with brad pitt, denzel washington, benito del toro and lucy liu? not many. hutu-tutsi conflict? same race, same ethnic group, same region. people always find reasons to hate one another. racism wasn't invented by whitey.

people hate poverty, not specific racial or ethnic groups. who would object to hanging out with brad pitt, denzel washington, benito del toro and lucy liu? not many. hutu-tutsi conflict? same race, same ethnic group, same region. people always find reasons to hate one another. racism wasn't invented by whitey.

1. You may want to recheck your history books for this one. Whitey had a lot to do with it.2. Further, racism as we know it WAS invented by whitey. But whitey certainly isn't the only one who can be racist, or who has been racist in the past. For the first point, see dynamics of power in race relations.3. Beer wins.